Fallout 76

[LowPolyOWG]

Back on topic: Looks like people are upset about this becoming a "live service" title

[Dweller_Benthos]

As in, micro-transactions and such like that?

[LowPolyOWG]

Well, yeah Think like GTA Online, which runs as a live service. Content drops, but you gotta grind for it, or, use your wallet instead

[fragger]

Hmm... How I felt about a choice of "grind or buy" would depend on whether I thought the extra content was worth the time. I wouldn't want to have to spend dozens of hours just to get a new outfit or something, and I'll be darned if I'll fork out more real money to get it on top of what I've already paid for the game itself.

I hate the way this sort of thing is going in games. I'm sure some devs will (or do) take advantage of many peoples' lack of patience by making a new extra goody such a long and dull in-game chore to obtain because they know that those people will rather spend actual money via some system like "Silver Bars" or "Shark Cards" simply to avoid the grind. Gamers generally aren't renowned for their saintly patience

Would you rather spend hours of tediously repetitive gameplay to get a bit of content that you want, or spend some real bucks to get it immediately? A great many people will choose the latter, and the devs know it. I'd be more inclined to decide that it isn't worth either expenditure, and just do without it.

Besides that, where's the sense of achievement in just buying something? I'd be painfully aware that the only thing I had achieved was to transfer money from my wallet to someone else's. Wasting dozens of hours of my time just to get something like a new weapon skin wouldn't exactly fill me with a giddy sense of accomplishment either.

A paid-for but extensive DLC package for a game is a different thing, because (provided you look into it first) you know you're getting a decent amount of extra content and a worthwhile addition to your game, not just some shiny new knick-knack to hang on a wall or park in a garage or whatever. And if said knick-knack is used in a MP game and it gives whoever buys it some advantage over the players who are patiently grinding their way towards it, it's essentially rewarding laziness (and gullibility) while penalizing those who make an effort.

If people are willing to spend more actual dough on extra content for a game they've already bought, well that's their choice. But I fear all it will do is encourage more of the same from devs in future. The day will come when games are released with the most minimal content possible, and if you want to get enough of the game to really make it worth playing, you'll have to pay through the nose. When that day comes, I think I'll start looking for a new pastime.

[LowPolyOWG]

To qoute EA/UBI*bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep**bleep*

"It's all about player choice, as seen with our player's first strategy. And we think loot boxes is an exciting way of getting rewarded. In our eyes, this isn't gambling. Items can't get exchanged for real monetary value and players can chose to not opt-in to this" -EA regarding loot boxes as "player choice" 

"Player recurring investment has the potential to deliver prodigious value to our shareholders" -Yves Guillemot on live services. Note, shareholders, UBI*bleep**bleep* would rather please them, than us gamers

To an extent, I can agree with you, fragger. Personally, I have bought some skin packs/MTX'es/season passes in some of my games. That was games I enjoy playing and felt I got some value from those purchases. Because, I knew what I would get. However, I do know that will encourage publishers/developers to push more of this slimy *bleep* Because, those monetization schemes are worse now, compared to 5-6 years ago

All this comes from the mobile market, which have plenty of free-to-play microtransaction riddled filth. EA/Activision definitely loves this idea so much. You should look up "Star Wars: Battlefront II loot boxes" and see what EA did. Activision is now under fire for the Black Ops 4 season pass, which apparently, can't be bought separately (Campaign is excluded and replaced with a Battle Royale mode).

MMOs can also be blamed for this live service thing, as they keep people playing through the content drops and the massive grind to hit new milestones. WoW haven't received sequels, just massive expansion packs every 2nd year to keep players engaged. This model doesn't really w0#k for some games, I watched a video discussing how Far Cry 5 failed as a "live service". To have a successful "live service", players need something to do, when they hit the end-game.

And publishers trying to imitate other's success.
CoD was a hallmark for the last gen and everybody wanted to become the new FPS king. Sadly, people already got their military FPS game of choice. Why would they need, or even, want another, modern military shooter? Now, the franchise have grown stale, due to annual releases and gamers looking to play something else.

Live services is basically publishers telling their talented developer teams to develop less games and churn out content they can keep on selling in the same game. Problem is, a lot of people tend to play many games and they can't dedicate themselves to multiple live services at the same time. And publishers will have to rely on the small number of people (fanboys) who will buy whatever that comes next. GTA Online is a live service. The bad side is R* are doing a poor job fixing issues.

Rather than ditching games completely, you should probably avoid some publishers. I am avoiding EA's games and I only buy Ubishit games every 3rd-4th year or so.

[Dweller_Benthos]

Yeah I was tempted in GTA5 to buy a card, to get some money to ramp up faster. The lowest ones are pretty cheap and give you a decent amount of in game money, which is what they are counting on, I'm sure. But I resisted, even the $3-$4 for the cheapest card, though not much in terms of real life money, seemed to be a bit, well, cheaty, in my book.

[LowPolyOWG]

The DLC guns are a bit cheaty as well. You're not supposed to have a MG before lvl 50. The RPG-7 is unlocked at lvl 80. DLC guns require you to be lvl 1 and have a lot of money. In other words, GTA Online is a Fee to pay and pay to win game

[LowPolyOWG]

Bethesda don't want to deal with Valve anymore

[Dweller_Benthos]

The one comment there says they always release betas on their own network, then the full game comes out on steam anyway. Or they could be trying to boost their own game platform and are using a flagship, guaranteed to be popular, title to do that.

[LowPolyOWG]

Not familiar with their beta testing schedules, but they are probably trying to make more money. Given Valve's 30% cut, I guess 30% less money isn't good enough for Bethesda...

[Art Blade]

[Dweller_Benthos]

Well, I'll have to watch more of that, but it looks interesting. I'm wondering about friendly fire and PVP though. Seems it's really geared towards teaming  up with other players. Getting random people to go along with you would be just pointless though. If we could get an OWG team going and keep it as exclusive as possible, I'd be up for it.

[Art Blade]

that idea sounds intriguing. I have no idea whether or not a) it can be played solo and/or b) there is a "private" server option that allows for something like a "friends only" or "invitation only" way of playing it. If there isn't anything that allows for that sort of privacy, I will stay away from it.

[LowPolyOWG]

Mods and private servers will come on November 2019, according to gamespot. So, wait until next year. Or, hope for RDR2 on PC instead

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-76-how-mods-and-private-servers-w0#k-and-w/1100-6462371/

[Art Blade]

as always with games that haven't been published yet: wait and see.

Oh and that URL can't w0#k because "w0#k" was censored while you posted it, replacing the word w0#k with the censored version. Now, even though I have disabled that censor feature for myself, I still see your censored version as a replacement in that URL. That simply doesn't "w0#k"